group work « Ecampus Course Development and Training

The Skill Students Resist, and Employers Expect

I have a confession. When I was earning my M.S.Ed. online, I dreaded seeing “group project” on a syllabus. I juggled coursework with a full-time job, logged in at odd hours, and did most of the work on every collaborative assignment. My standards were higher, my contributions more substantial, my late nights longer. I carried the team.

Here’s the awkward part: so did everyone else.

Researchers have been studying this phenomenon since 1979, when psychologists Michael Ross and Fiore Sicoly found that group members consistently overestimate their own contributions (Ross & Sicoly, 1979). When you ask everyone on a team to estimate their percentage of the work, the numbers don’t add up to 100%; they add up to 114% on six-person teams. In studies of scientific coauthors, that number balloons to 167%. The bigger the team, the worse it gets: eight-person groups claim a collective 140% of the credit (Schroeder et al., 2016).

So if you or your students have ever finished a group project thinking I’m the only one who pulled my weight, congratulations. You’re not a uniquely burdened hero. You’re experiencing a well-documented cognitive bias known as egocentric overclaiming. And so is every other person on the team.

If you’ve ever been on the receiving end of student complaints about group work, this bias is a big part of why. Each student genuinely remembers their own effort more vividly than anyone else’s. The frustration is real, even when the workload was more balanced than it felt.

Why Collaboration Belongs in Online Course Design

That frustration is one reason faculty hesitate to assign collaborative work, and one reason students dread it. When the experience feels unfair (even when it isn’t), it’s hard to see the value. And yet, employers keep saying collaboration is exactly what they need. NACE consistently ranks teamwork among the top competencies employers seek (NACE Job Outlook, 2025). And with the rise of remote and hybrid work, the ability to collaborate asynchronously with a distributed team isn’t a nice-to-have; it’s the job.

Here’s what I find most compelling, and what I didn’t appreciate until years after finishing my own degree: the asynchronous collaboration I did as an online student may have been closer to real workplace collaboration than any in-person group project. Navigating shared documents, negotiating timelines with classmates in different time zones, and giving written feedback to peers I rarely interact with face-to-face, I was rehearsing exactly the skills I now use every day in a distributed professional team. I just didn’t know it at the time.

And the data supports this. Research published in the Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks found that online programs emphasizing student engagement and collaborative practices achieved completion rates of 85% or higher, meeting or exceeding those of their face-to-face counterparts. Faculty and instructional designers are paying attention, and so are employers. The question, then, isn’t whether to include collaboration in online courses. It’s about designing it so students experience it as preparation rather than punishment.

Making It Work: Practical Strategies for Course Design

None of this means we should assign a group project and hope for the best. When collaboration is poorly designed with vague instructions, uneven accountability, and misaligned outcomes, student frustration is justified. Here are approaches that work across disciplines:

Start with community, not content. Introductory discussions can feel formulaic, “share your name, major, and a fun fact”, but they don’t have to be. When students share their backgrounds, goals, and even their anxieties about the course in week one, it lays the groundwork for everything collaborative that follows. The shift is subtle but real: from “strangers assigned to a group” to “people who know something about each other.”

Be intentional about team formation. Random group assignment is easy, but a little structure goes a long way. Consider using surveys to match students by schedule availability, working style, or shared interests. Some institutions use dedicated tools , at OSU, for example, Ecampus offers a group finder tool , while others have students use AI to synthesize individual preferences into a working team charter. The goal is the same regardless of approach: help students start from common ground rather than cold introductions.

Make contributions visible. Remember that overclaiming bias? One of the best ways to counteract it is to build in structured peer evaluation of team contributions, not a review of each other’s papers, but an honest assessment of how each member showed up for the group. When teammates rate each other on dimensions like participation, communication, and follow-through, it creates accountability and gives instructors insight they wouldn’t otherwise have. At OSU, Ecampus has developed a custom tool for this purpose. CATME is a widely used option, and even a well-designed Google Form with clear criteria can do the job. However you implement it, the point is to give students a structured way to reflect on, and be accountable for, their collaboration.

Design for real-world parallels. In the sciences, interdisciplinary teams can tackle complex problems that mirror real-world research collaborations by designing solutions, analyzing data, and presenting findings as a group. In business courses, teams can build a business plan or marketing strategy together, or work through a case competition where they analyze a real scenario and present recommendations. In the humanities, students can collaborate on oral history projects or produce a podcast episode together, work that requires negotiation, shared decision-making, and a tangible product. The key is making the collaboration itself part of the learning outcome, not just a delivery mechanism.

A Better Way to Think About It

The next time a student groans about a group project or a colleague pushes back on interaction requirements, it might help to share the research on overclaiming. Not to dismiss their frustration, but to reframe it: the discomfort of collaboration isn’t a design flaw. It’s the learning happening.

And if they still insist they did most of the work? Well. So did everyone else.

References

Herz, N., Dan, O., Censor, N., & Bar-Haim, Y. (2020). Authors overestimate their contribution to scientific work, demonstrating a strong bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(12), 6282–6285.
Moore, J. C., & Fetzner, M. J. (2009). The road to retention: A closer look at institutions that achieve high course completion rates. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3), 3–22.
National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2025). Job outlook 2025. https://www.naceweb.org/career-readiness/competencies/
Ross, M., & Sicoly, F. (1979). Egocentric biases in availability and attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 322–336.
Schroeder, J., Caruso, E. M., & Epley, N. (2016). Many hands make overlooked work: Over-claiming of responsibility increases with group size. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22(2), 238–246. See also: Why teams overinflate their contributions. Chicago Booth Review. https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/why-teams-overinflate-their-contributions

Too often, online courses struggle with communication that feels slow and one-sided. Students swap ideas in discussion boards, but collaboration stops there. Integrating Microsoft Teams into Canvas changes that. It brings real-time conversation, file-sharing, and group spaces directly into the LMS–helping students connect more naturally and giving instructors new ways to guide and engage. This integration not only boosts collaboration, it also provides more opportunities for Regular and Substantive Interaction (RSI) between students and instructors—structured, faculty-initiated engagement that is required in online courses under federal guidelines.

Seamless Collaboration Across Projects and Courses

Integrating Teams into Canvas ensures that group work and peer review move beyond static discussion boards into dynamic, asynchronous interactions. Students can download the app on their mobile devices, which allows them to have more consistent and real-time access to the comments and work shared by their peers. Teams allows for:

Dedicated channels for individual projects or study groups
Tagging teammates so each member of a channel knows when they are needed
File sharing by both team members and instructors

This unified workspace helps teams stay organized, accountable, and focused on shared learning outcomes. Teams has both course-level and group-level integrations. This allows instructors flexibility in how they would like to use the app. These different levels allow Teams to be used for the entire course or just for specific group projects (or both). Regardless of the level of integration and use, instructors can see how students are collaborating and completing a task or group assignment. This gives them a space to quickly jump in if students are struggling or off track.

Enhanced Communication and Community Building

Canvas announcements and emails can feel one-sided; within Teams, conversations become two-way forums where ideas flow instantly. Notifications appear directly inside Canvas (and on mobile devices if students/instructors allow), ensuring students never miss critical updates. Meanwhile, professors can host Q&A chats without scheduling hurdles by simply creating a channel in Teams. The fluid interaction nurtures a vibrant learning community, fostering peer support and timely faculty feedback. Additionally, this allows instructors to meet their Regular and Substantive Interaction goals, nurtures a collaborative online community and directly addresses the Ecampus Essentials standard of requiring all three forms (student–student, student–instructor, student–content) of interaction and engagement in a classroom.

Easy Oversight for Seeking Solutions Courses

One of the new CoreEd (Core Education is OSU’s state-of-the-art, 21st-century-focused general education program) categories being implemented this year include the Seeking Solutions courses. These courses require students to work in interdisciplinary groups and “wrestle with complex, multifaceted problems, and evaluate potential solutions from multiple points of view” (from the Seeking Solutions OSU page). This necessitates that students complete group assignments and projects while instructors mentor and monitor these groups individually.

With a fully asynchronous OSU Ecampus course, this can be difficult. One way this can be accomplished is through Teams channels. If each group has its own Teams channel and the instructor requires that they use Teams to communicate and collaborate for their project, then instructors can use this space to share resources, mentor the students, and facilitate hard conversations.

Conclusion

Integrating Microsoft Teams into Canvas reshapes the university experience by uniting collaboration and communication within a single resource. Students benefit from real-time teamwork features and greater access to their instructors, while professors enjoy streamlined group work oversight and the ability to intervene whenever necessary. Adopting this integrated approach not only enhances the quality of instruction but also fosters a more engaged and connected learning community. For more information on how to integrate Teams into your Canvas site, read the Canvas: Create linked Teams from Canvas page.

chart of five phases of engagement: connect, communicate, collaborate, co-facilitate, and continue

Why Group Work Is Important

Love it or hate it, group work is an important part of education. Learning to work cooperatively with diverse people is a core 21st century skill, one which employers increasingly value and expect new workers to have mastered. Experience gathered from group work in educational settings directly transfers to and prepares students for successful collaboration in work teams. By collaborating in teams, students learn a wide range of discrete as well as soft skills that make group work worth the effort, including those below.

Technology skills
Social skills
Self-awareness
Empathy
Coping with stress
Creating work plans and schedules
Forecasting needs and hurdles
Time management & meeting deadlines
Working with difficult personalities
Managing & navigating unmet expectations
Following up & messaging
Accountability
Leadership
Development of academic/professional voice

Pedagogically, group work supports a constructivist approach to learning, in which students contribute to the learning environment, build knowledge both individually and collectively, and co-create the classroom environment. Constructivist theory posits that learning is a social process and values student interaction with and contributions to collective knowledge. Group work and student collaboration are foundational methods in constructivist classrooms that help students develop the knowledge and skills that allow them to meet learning objectives. Additionally, group work is seen as a key element of student-student interaction.

Considerations for Successful Groups

The first thing instructors should consider when planning to incorporate group work is to reflect on WHY they are assigning it- as an objective of learning or as a means of learning. Group work for the purpose of learning collectively, producing collaboratively, or for gaining experience working cooperatively are all valid reasons to include group work.

Additionally, instructors must consider the limits of the asynchronous modality when creating group assignments. We all know how difficult it can be if the group you end up working in is not harmonious; For students in asynchronous online courses, group work can be even more difficult, with challenges like different time zones, different daily schedules, and lack of face to face collaboration opportunities. Even the most thoughtfully designed group activities can run into problems. What happens when one student fails to contribute? Do the other group members take up the slack and cover for their absent partner? How should a group handle an overbearing group member who takes on more than their fair share of the project? Anticipating the potential hurdles that may arise when planning the group project and incorporating support and resources for struggling groups can alleviate these barriers to a large degree.

An important consideration when creating group assignments is Conrad & Donaldson’s Phases of Engagement model, which advises instructors to structure group work so that students can build up group cohesion through low-stakes activities like icebreakers, introductions, and discussion forum posting towards the beginning of the term before ramping up to more complicated collaborative projects. This scaffolding of tasks helps groups bond and build community among members, facilitating better working relationships and the trust necessary to work through the intricacies of a complex group project. The theory can be helpful when approaching a series of courses within a specific degree program as well, moving from simple group projects in lower division courses to co-facilitating and transformative ongoing engagement at the upper levels.

Another model that can help instructors understand how to structure group work is Peter Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions of a Team, which describes a pyramid of features that are required for groups to function effectively. Lencioni claims that trust is the foundation of any functioning group, followed in ascending order by managing conflict through healthy discourse, ensuring commitment and buy-in, providing a method of accountability for team members, and a focus on collective results over personal prestige. Avoiding dysfunction by clearly structuring group work to anticipate and provide tools for dealing with these problems can ensure teams get off on the right footing and can work together smoothly.

Additionally, instructors should consider the type of collaboration that is common within their own discipline, whether it be performing distinct roles within a team or more general projects requiring cooperation. Designers often work together creatively to develop and improve products; medical teams must work collectively but in distinct roles to serve patients; computer software developers must be able to distribute work and manage tight deadlines; public-facing personnel must be able to amicably respond to a range of customer behaviors. Connecting group work explicitly to real-world work scenarios helps students see the value and relevance of their learning, which helps increase engagement and dedication. Structuring group projects to mimic the type of work tasks they can anticipate also provides the added value of preparing students for scenarios they will actually be faced with on the job.

Finally, since asynchronous group work relies heavily on technology, ensure that the technology to be used by the group is familiar or can be mastered quickly. Provide detailed instructions or tutorials for how to use the technology, plan for how to handle issues students might face with technology, and share resources they can tap should they run into problems. University instructional technology support can be linked to, and websites and apps often offer training videos.

Types of group work

Pair/partner work
Informal cooperative active learning
Group essays or projects
Group presentations

Setting groups up for success

Set up groups of the right size, preferably with an odd number of participants
Make groups heterogenous to encourage peer-to-peer learning
Provide opportunities for students to activate their unique background knowledge and perspectives
Provide detailed instructions for group interaction expectations
Provide guidance on strategies for dividing the workload, such as setting up roles (ie: organizer, recorder, liaison, etc.)
Provide detailed instructions and rubrics for expected process and product
Split the grade for group work between collective and individual grades
Build in check-ins with instructor early on and midway
Plan for interventions if groups are not functioning well
Allow team members to evaluate each other’s and their own performance for contribution, cooperation, & timeliness

Sources

What are the benefits of group work? – Eberly Center

21st Century Skills Map

Group work as an incentive for learning – students’ experiences of group work

Group work – Teaching practice – Learning and teaching guidance – Elevate – Staff

Transforming The Online Learner

Increasing Student-to-Student Engagement: Applying Conrad and Donaldson’s “Phases of Engagement” in the Online Classroom

Teamwork 5 Dysfunctions